Listar contas do Outlook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: the computer's Outlook may contain more than one account, and the agent should disambiguate by asking the user. This enriches the agent's understanding of the operation without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads the read-only nature and core action, and then adds usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is sufficient: it names what is listed, notes multiplicity, and instructs how to handle ambiguity. A minor gap is that it does not describe the exact return format, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to document. The description appropriately adds context about the scope and purpose of the list, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('lista as contas/caixas disponíveis'), the resource ('contas/caixas'), and the scope ('no Outlook instalado no computador, pode haver mais de uma'). It also distinguishes this from account selection by instructing the agent to ask the user which account to use rather than choosing on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit condition for use: 'quando o pedido do usuário for ambíguo entre contas'. It also states the required follow-up behavior—ask which account the user wants—and explicitly advises against choosing alone. This is direct, actionable usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.